Recent articles I have revised are "Out of Africa (OoA): What They Do not Tell us"; an important added reference [1] I will discuss further below. I just did not know how far the corruption of science, which I know well about through my personal experience in several other fields, has compromised research around old bones. As often with corrupted science, it is at first hard to grasp the issue because the distortions are based so unbelievably idiotically that an honest man may not be able to accept that other intelligent educated people could possibly compromise their output in such ways.
As usual, the truth is suppressed in order to fight some evil XYZ, but the presented alternative is far more XYZ than the suppressed could ever be! I have shown examples of that in physics, where one famous XYZ was ether underlying space-time relativity. With OoA, the evil is so called "racism." I did not understand why intellectuals would insist on OoA, thinking:
Do these educated people really stop at "out of Africa, so we are all the same, Kumbaya!", thus supporting a theory that puts Africans closer to a primitive origin in the African Chimps, a theory that gives the Whites 'advanced evolutionary model' status, something that multi-region origin theories do not do? How can they be that stupid and undermine their own position in such naive-racist ways?
Well, now I know. Basically, yes, they are that stupid. They think that if one puts a common origin at 65 000 years ago, suppressing all evidence against it, everybody will agree that evolution did not have sufficient time to evolve differences between humans. But who thinks that 65 thousand years is not enough to lead to differences? Ashkenazim Jews increased their average IQ by a whole standard deviation in about one thousand years!
I sincerely apologize for having been careless and written up stuff without a proper doubting of the given establishment science, which is naive given the systemic corruption of the scientific community. This brings me to my first ever book recommendation.
Whenever I read a book I almost invariably become disgusted, even if I like the book quite a bit and find it important. An interesting book relevant to the issue of race is for example Jared Diamond's "Guns Germs, and Steel", but it is so damn biased, so obviously aimed at pleasing egalitarians, ... no, as an honest scientist, I cannot recommend it.
The book "Erectus Walks Among Us" [1] is very different, stuffed full with science that no scientist is allowed to say.
As any good book that talks too much actual science: It is not recommended anywhere, especially not by "science bloggers"!
Sometimes, especially if Fuerle mentions the Jews, one can feel animosity, but get this: it does not lead to him to distorting facts such as the high average Ashkenazim IQ. No wonder that the book is not recommended by people on the far right either.
About 500 pages, almost every page brimming with scientific references and plenty of controversial new ideas to boot: Of course there are mistakes and I do not agree with everything or the overall outlook (he discusses the future not mentioning AI). However, the author has been so thorough, so honest, and the message is so important today, as much as suppressed, I put my neck out and do something I have never done before: I recommend a book!
Even those who are not interested into the details of old bones and genetics or race mixing and its related depression of IQ and the liberal distortions of "Hybrid Vigor" and all of that, the introduction to corruption of science is enough to recommend this book to anybody interested in science!
If you cannot read a book critically and take what is worth taking, do not read "Erectus walks among us". To those who hunger for honest scientific writing about important issues: Read "Erectus walks among us"!
The huge amount of facts concerning bones and teeth and alleles and all that is quite tiring, so you may like to skip entire sections, which is however difficult. I first skipped and then did not understand his Out of Europe (OoE) theory, so I had to read it page by page. The book could be better organized. However, Fuerle did not even want to write the book and had to stop at some point after four years of dedicated hard work, so the sub-ideal arrangement is excused. Thank you Richard Fuerle.
----------------
[1] Richard D. Fuerle: "Erectus walks among us: The Evolution of Modern Humans" Spooner Press NY, (2008)
UPDATE: Sorry - the comments are closed and I cannot open them. Here my answer to Adam's question “What is the genetic mechanism that produces out-breeding depression? My initial thought would be that isolated breeding populations, over time, - due to fixation of alleles in the population - can actually develop a genetic architecture in which epistatic effects contribute non-negligibily to IQ. When populations mix these epistatic effects are lost.” :
Genes co-evolve together and depend on each other. If we divide a population into two isolated gene pools, at some point, even with mere random genetic drift, speciation occurs, i.e. you cannot mix them up anymore, because genes that did not sufficiently co-evolve together since the separation don't work together anymore and clash. In other words, there is a spectrum reaching from one extreme, namely hybrid vigor (with recently isolated and still very similar gene pools where moreover in-breeding led to lack of the kind of necessary diversity good for rapid adaptation), to the other extreme, namely usual speciation (long ago separated gene pools). In between, if the gene pools are each large and diverse, there is no hybrid vigor that can mask the clashing of genes that will not work well together anymore, so we have out-breeding depression. In brief: Out-breeding depression is not necessarily some strange, independent effect, but expected, usual general evolution. (Of course, there may also be, and probably are, interesting out-breeding depression mechanisms that deserve being described as separate, evolved mechanisms of evolution, just like sexual procreation delivering enhanced adaptive diversity for example is something more than just totally expected general evolution, but I emphasize those mechanisms that are utterly expected from the pure mathematics of algorithmic evolution)
Comments